ancient university will be no longer connected with the Church of England. It may in a few years become a great school of atheism, or anarchy, or, more probably, of Popery, as dark and withering as that of the fourteenth century.

Lord Ebury has renewed his motion for a moderate revision. of the Prayer-book, and, we are sorry to add, with but indifferent success. In fact, he was defeated in the House of Lords by a majority of more than two to one. The question has gone backwards, and for the present it is set at rest. Fourteen years ago, a case of gross oppression occurred at Cambridge, where an excellent minister was suspended for six months, and left to pay all the expenses of a costly suit, for having refused to read a few sentences of the Burial Service over a hopeless drunkard who died intoxicated. The University was justly indignant. Four thousand members of the Church, chiefly clergymen, appealed to the archbishop, asking for relief; men of every shade in the Church of England, except a few who were on the borders of Popery, into which most of them soon after fell, subscribed the petition. The Times of that day applauded their conduct; and had no legal difficulties interposed, they seemed on the verge of success. It is a painful proof how times are altered, that although none ventured to take the question on its merits, it was dismissed with but little ceremony by the House of Lords; while the Times, always quick to perceive and to take advantage of the ebb and flow of public opinion, has now discovered that Lord Ebury is a weak enthusiast. The Earl of Chichester, the president of the Church Missionary Society, had studied the question, and spoke upon it strongly in favour of some graceful act of conciliation; it would be the first, he said, the Church had ever made to Nonconformists.

Painful reflections force themselves upon our mind. Their Lordships, not without some reason, are alarmed. They are aware that a party is growing up in the Church itself, who will hail any change with delight, if it only relaxes either the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England. Especially it abhors the idea of future punishment; and, therefore, the more vague the Burial Service can be made, the better would they like it. Then this is a question on which no assistance is to be expected from the great bulk of nominal churchmen. They wish to persuade themselves, not merely that there is no hell, no eternity of future punishment, but that all go at once to heaven; and these, too, are very favourite opinions. We lately had the opportunity of inquiring how the case stood in a large manufactory, and we were informed that only one man had the courage to stand forth in defence of the scriptural doctrine on this awful subject. It is time that the Evangelical clergy be

stirred themselves. Our younger brethren have much Evangelical sentiment, but they seldom shew themselves acquainted with Evangelical doctrine. Pious Christians everywhere pour into our ears the same complaint; they hear much to amuse, but nothing to edify, nothing to console, as life wears away, and eternity seems to come full in view. As to the youthful preachers, having no root in themselves, they fall away, and are perplexed by each novelty that presents itself; by the "Seven Essays," or the "Ecce Homo's, "Robertson's Sermons," or other

"Doctrines fashioned to the varying hour."

A painful event has occurred at Brighton, which we feel it our duty to notice, the rather because there seems an unaccountable disposition to have it hushed up. Our information is derived solely from the Armourer, a fearless and heartily Protestant newspaper, from which it has been copied into several of the most respectable of the London newspapers. If there has been any exaggeration, we shall only be too happy to publish any contradiction that may be placed in our hands. The story is this, that a young lady of about one-and-twenty, of irreproachable character, who was already a convert to the ultra-Anglican school, went for the purpose of auricular confession to one of the clergy in Brighton, whose ultra-Tractarian or Puseyite views are notorious. He told her that her sin was of so dark a dye that he could only receive her confession in the church at midnight before himself alone. She obeyed, and left the church a hopeless lunatic. After a day or two she had an interval of consciousness, and then she related to her mother all that had passed, and immediately relapsed into a state of mental imbecility. The minister in question was immediately sent for, and he made no attempt to deny the truth of her statement. It is said further, that the young lady is the daughter of a family well known and much respected in Brighton.

Now, if this be true, or near the truth, we have already come to a state of things worse than anything that the Church of Rome attempts to justify. Their system of secrecy places unsuspecting innocence at the mercy of a designing priest; but they tell us that his wickedness rests upon his own head, and that there are bad men in all communions. Their church has a regular scale of penances; and auricular confession before a solitary priest in a lonely church at midnight is not amongst the number. It is said, as an apology we suppose, that the young lady had been previously subject to attacks of insanity. But to us it seems that this only renders matters worse; and the conduct of the poor girl's father-confessor more heartless and more cruel. Out of the cells of the Inqui

sition we never read of anything more dreadful. Has the bishop of the diocese no power to interfere? or, if not, will not some fearless member of Parliament take up the subject?

The panorama moves on rapidly, and since we began to write the aspect of the world is changed. The Ministry, beaten by a small majority on a clause in their Reform Bill on the amount of the qualification for the Franchise, have placed their resignation in her Majesty's hands. It is impossible to make a second appeal to the country after the general election of last year, not yet twelve months ago. With the financial panic still producing its baneful effects, and at this most inconvenient time of the year, it would be almost an act of madness. It seems probable, therefore, that Lord Derby and his friends will be called upon to form a new administration; but the result will not be known until we have closed our pages.

The war cloud which overhung Europe has broken at last. Prussia was the first to draw the sword; while we write, a great battle is being fought between the Austrians and King Victor Emmanuel in Italy. It is distressing to read the indifference with which the slaughter is spoken of; but such is war, so hardening, so brutalising. Prussia has marched her armies into Hanover. It is not yet so long since George III., with his other titles, bore that of King of Hanover; and, in the centre of the royal arms, on a separate escutcheon, was the white horse of Hanover, surmounted by an imperial crown. On the death of the old monarch (with all his faults, the most popular and beloved of English kings), the crown descended to his son, the Duke of Cumberland; and the present occupant of the throne of this little kingdom, lately Prince George of Hanover, is first cousin to our Queen. Our royal family are Hanoverians; and were we as fond of fighting as our fathers were, English regiments would have been already in the field, and Prussia would have paid dearly for her rapacity. We do not profess to keep pace with events of a war which is overspreading Europe, and of which the details must be chronicled afresh almost every hour. Italy has thrown a large army into the very heart of the Quadrilateral. Garibaldi, at the head of 20,000 men, has gone upon an expedition which is yet secret. But we can add no

more.

It is

The Jamaica Commission have made their report. in substance just what the verdict of England had anticipated. The atrocities of the negroes were such as to spread universal alarm, and fully to justify the early severities of Governor Eyre. There was a murderous conspiracy to expel or massacre all the whites, and to seize upon the island. But Governor Eyre is censured for having permitted martial law to be exercised

when all real cause of alarm had disappeared; and, still more, for having intrusted the administration of justice, or rather, we fear, the work of vengeance, to the hands of young, inexperienced, and violent men of both services. The number who were put to death, flogged, and treated with cruelty, is given. The amount is dreadful; though far less than has been confidently represented at home. The governor is recalled, and for the present Sir Henry Storks remains upon the island. Ramsay, the provost marshal, is to be tried for murder; and Sir Henry Storks is to institute inquiries against the worst offenders. Such is the substance of the report.

The Fenians, numbering in all about two thousand, have at last fulfilled their boast and invaded Canada; first at an insignificant village called Fort Erie, and afterwards at another point on the frontier. Being attacked by a regiment of loyal volunteers, they fought with desperation, and killed several of the Canadian troops, including three officers; but when other troops appeared, they broke and fled; and, in forty-eight hours, the invasion was at an end. Our loyal colonists deserve, and will no doubt receive, the thanks of her Majesty; and we owe, at least, a similar expression of national good-will to the President and Government of the United States. The President issued a proclamation forbidding the meetings of the Fenians, and despatched General Grant to the banks of the Niagara river, to prevent the exportation of arms, or the return of the Fenians who had crossed the river. The consequences have been, that they are all prisoners. Had it not been for the lives they have destroyed, they would escape through sheer contempt. And even as it is, it will, we hope, be found, that justice having done its work upon the few, the remainder may be spared.

So the month ends, and we add only that it ought to be closed with equal expressions of national humiliation and national thankfulness; for, though our sins are great, yet our cup runneth over, filled to the brim with mercies undeserved.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

THE proposal which has reached us from Shurton, Somerset, is declined. The great accumulation of business connected with the Christian Observer has led to the appointment of a SUB-EDITOR, by whom all business arrangements will be conducted. His address will be at "Messrs. C. F. Hodgson & Son, 1 Gough Square, Fleet Street, E.C."

Dr. Wylie's valuable Letter has been received, but it is too late for us this month. It shall appear in our next.

A Correspondent, who writes from Ireland, questions the accuracy of our statement that the Rubric is obsolete which decides that the vestments

worn in the days of Edward VI. shall still be used. We trust he will be satisfied with the legal opinion given below.

A Case on "The Ornaments of the Minister," which has been set out at great length, has been submitted to Counsel, on behalf of " several archbishops and bishops of the United Church of England and Ireland." It concludes by asking the following questions :-"1. Suppose a clergyman of the Established Church of England to administer the Holy Communion in a parish church, habited in the vestments prescribed by King Edward VI.'s first Prayer-book (1549), does he infringe the law, and commit an offence cognisable by any legal tribunal? 2. Suppose him to introduce into the Communion Service the use of two or more lights on the Communion-table, not burnt for the sake of giving light, but as an ingredient in the service itself; or the use of incense burnt in thuribles or censers for censing persons or things; or the ceremonial mixing of water with the sacramental wine; or the use of wafers instead of bread, such as is usual to be eaten; or the use of hymns before or after the prayer of consecration, or at the time of administering the elements; does he thereby infringe the law, and commit an offence cog. nisable by any legal tribunal? 3. What would be the best way in which to to raise these questions so as to obtain a decision upon them ?"

The following is the opinion obtained :-"1. We are of opinion, that the first question should be answered in the affirmative. A careful consideration of the language of the Act of Uniformity of 1662, and the Rubric of the Prayer-book, and a comparison of that language with the previous rubrics and enactments applicable to the question, lead us to the conclusion, that the intention of the Legislature was not to revive or restore the use of any ornaments which had become obsolete. The statute of Elizabeth, as altered by the advertisements, had been recognised by the Liturgy and Canons of James in 1604, and appears unquestionably to have been in force down to 1661; and, since there is nothing in the statute of that year (except so far as it establishes the Rubric) which touches the point, it is by the Rubric alone, that the practice which had been established by the advertisements, can have been altered or repealed. We do not think that the Rubric has, or was intended to have, this effect. On the contrary, it would seem to only apply to such ornaments of the minister as are common to all times of his ministration, and to point to a retention of such as were then in use, rather than to a revival of such as had been displaced by the advertisements. This interpretation is supported by the universal practice which has prevailed from 1662 down to the present time, and which affords a contemporaneous exposition' of the Rubric, to which great weight would be attached by every court of law in England. 2. We are of opinion, that the second question should also be answered in the affirmative. We think that the use of lights in the manner indicated in the question is illegal. The point is, in fact, res judicata, having been settled by Dr. Lushington's Judgment, to which we have been referred. We think the use of incense in the way suggested clearly unauthorised and illegal. The ceremonial mixing of water with the wine as a significant act in the course of the service appears to us to be illegal. We think that wafers would not be considered to be bread within the meaning of the Rubric referred to. The introduction of hymns, either immediately before or after the prayer of consecration, or during the administration of the elements, appears to us to be unauthorised and illegal, since it would interfere with the unbroken continuity of the service. 3. In answer to the third question, we consider that a proceeding under the Church Discipline Act of 1840 would be the only way to raise these questions, so as to obtain a decision upon them.-(Signed) ROUNDELL PALMER, H. M. CAIRNS, GEORGE MELLISH, FRANCIS BARROW.-Lincoln's-Inn, May 29, 1866."

We have received, in reply to Mr. Garratt's letter on the subject of his differences from the Hora Apocalypticæ, inserted in our last number, a letter from the Rev. E. B. Elliott, intended for this July number of our Periodical; but which, as having reached us too late, we must defer to our number for August. It is the first, he intimates, of two letters, as proposed by him, on the subject.